Only valid for active forum users. Active means at least 30 postings within the last 30 days (no spam postings). This will automatically being checked at www.starbike.com shopping basket so make sure that you are logged in at the WW board!If there does not appear a WW discount position when you check out you do not have enough postings!

VIAS, XR4, Foil and a climbing frame (Merida Sculptura) up for comparison this time. The numbers are much lower compared to the last test. Anyone know if that's due to arms being straight on drops and hoods this time and bent last time?

Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.

Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.

But isn't the point that the % differences can be applied to most speeds? So say with the Scott Foil you would need 10% less power to ride at 45kph compared to your standard bike, you would also need 10% less to ride at 30kph? At least that's how I understand their reasoning for doing tests at high speed/watts

Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.

Marketing isn't a euphemism for physics.

In fact if you run the numbers, you'll find that the slower you are, the more meaningful and dramatic aerodynamics are in terms of time. It's 'Joe Average' who benefits the most.

This backwards aero-denial has the same baseless, cherry-picking that goes on with climate change deniers.

Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.

Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.

But isn't the point that the % differences can be applied to most speeds? So say with the Scott Foil you would need 10% less power to ride at 45kph compared to your standard bike, you would also need 10% less to ride at 30kph? At least that's how I understand their reasoning for doing tests at high speed/watts

Air resistance doesn't work like that. If the speed doubles, air resistance quadruples. Less speed means less air resistance.This is why most recreational cyclist have zero need for aero bikes - it is even highlighted when the frame geometry is too aggressive for a rider.

DutchMountains wrote:[...] Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time [...]

TobinHatesYou wrote:What’s a meaningful time to you?

The rides I care about are about 7-60 hours in the saddle (ie. London-Edinburgh-London) and I average about 120W on these rides (measured with Quarq DZero). FTP according to TrainerRoad (on a Tacx Genius) is ~ 290W but my max on the road is more like 210W for an hour.

Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.

But isn't the point that the % differences can be applied to most speeds? So say with the Scott Foil you would need 10% less power to ride at 45kph compared to your standard bike, you would also need 10% less to ride at 30kph? At least that's how I understand their reasoning for doing tests at high speed/watts

Air resistance doesn't work like that. If the speed doubles, air resistance quadruples. Less speed means less air resistance.This is why most recreational cyclist have zero need for aero bikes - it is even highlighted when the frame geometry is too aggressive for a rider.

Again, more bilge waffle.

Aerodynamics is not about needs. No-one needs anything. It's about benefit.

Aerodynamics benefit slower riders more than fast riders because of time saved. Slow, solo riders benefit the greatest. Professional sprint finishes are almost impossible to quantity in terms of aerodynamic benefits from bike parts as the forces from drafting and slingshotting are far too great and the range in those estimates drown out any possible benefit from aerodynamic bike parts. You could possibly make the case where Kittel, who was simply powering down, without slingshotting in some Tour wins last year, may have had benefit from his deep wheels and aero bike. Maybe. You'd have to make the case, and it would be hard to do if you ran the numbers.

A solo rider, going on a big weekend ride at only 16 to 17mph can save a big chunk of time however. They are essentially time trialing and as any halfwit knows - the longer the time spent on a course solo, the greater the time saved can be had from aerodynamics.

There is no reason to want to buy bikes, clothing or helmets that are not aerodynamic. It makes as little sense as intentionally buying something that's uncomfortable.

You would only ever trade off a little aerodynamics for some other aspect that was important to you, however those days are largely gone as stiffness, compliance, low weight etc are all excellent on current gen aero bikes.

The name is unnecessary now, they should lose the moniker and be called bikes again. Then people will stop talking bilge about how aerodynamics aren't 'needed' in bicycles.